Abraham Accords Expansion — President Donald Trump has declared it should be ‘mandatory’ for a sweeping list of countries — including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Pakistan, Turkiye and Egypt — to establish or reaffirm diplomatic relations with Israel as a condition of any agreement ending the ongoing US-Iran war, laying out an ambitious vision that has so far been met with silence from every government he named.
In a post on Monday, Trump called on these nations to ‘at a minimum, simultaneously, sign onto the Abraham Accords‘ as part of a broader diplomatic settlement. The demand arrives at a fraught moment: the United States and Israel launched military operations against Iran on February 28, and reported terms of a possible peace deal — including the unfreezing of billions of dollars in Iranian assets and a 60-day ceasefire — have triggered fierce pushback from within Trump’s own political coalition.
The normalisation push carries notable complications. Two of the six countries Trump cited, Turkiye and Egypt, already maintain formal diplomatic ties with Israel. Saudi Arabia, meanwhile, has repeatedly reaffirmed its commitment to the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative, which conditions normalisation on Israeli recognition of a Palestinian state along its 1967 borders — a position flatly rejected by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. None of the governments mentioned have publicly responded to Trump’s call.
Recommended Reading
Dania Thafer, executive director of the Gulf International Forum, said Trump appears to be attempting to frame the war as a victory for both Washington and Jerusalem. Gulf states, she noted, are ‘not interested’ in normalisation at this stage, a position shaped in part by the fact that several of those countries came under Iranian attacks during the conflict. The gap between Trump’s ambitions and regional political realities is wide.
The Abraham Accords — brokered during Trump’s first term in 2020 — brought Israel into formal relations with the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Morocco. Efforts by both Trump and his successor, former President Joe Biden, to extend that framework to other Arab states have failed. The current push faces the added obstacle of an active war and unresolved questions about Palestinian statehood.
Inside the United States, the prospect of any deal with Iran has fractured the hawkish consensus that initially supported military action. Senator Lindsey Graham warned on Saturday that ending the conflict in a manner that reopens the Strait of Hormuz — through which more than 20 percent of the world’s oil transits — would be a ‘nightmare’ for Israel. Senator Ted Cruz said he was ‘concerned’ about reports of a possible settlement, while Senator Roger Wicker publicly criticised the rumoured 60-day ceasefire framework.
Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, a prominent voice on Iran policy during Trump’s first administration, also criticised the reported deal terms. White House Communications Director Steven Cheung pushed back against Pompeo’s comments on social media. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee shared posts critical of the potential agreement, adding institutional weight to the opposition.
Abraham Accords Expansion: Regional Implications
Pro-Israel commentator Mark Levin illustrated the shifting currents within Trump’s base: after criticising the potential Iran deal on Saturday, he praised Trump’s normalisation push on Monday. Critics have questioned what the war’s objectives actually were — regime change in Iran, dismantling its nuclear programme, and degrading its missile arsenal were all cited at various points — and whether any deal on the table would achieve them. Hawkish figures have insisted that any acceptable agreement must remove or severely weaken Iran’s political leadership and destroy its military capabilities.
The Strait of Hormuz dimension adds economic urgency to the diplomatic calculus. A prolonged closure of the waterway would send global energy markets into turmoil, a factor that may be driving Washington toward a negotiated exit even as critics argue the terms are insufficient. Whether Trump can simultaneously satisfy Gulf states wary of normalisation, a Republican base divided over Iran, and an Israeli government opposed to Palestinian statehood remains the central unanswered question of his Middle East strategy.
